DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/22/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-21 are pending and are being examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits and speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arik (US2011/0174462A1).
Re Claim 1. Arik teaches a device for impingement cooling (via synthetic jet 30) comprising: a base (12); fins (14) extending from the base, wherein the fins are arranged to form a lattice (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 11. Arik teaches a system for impingement cooling comprising: a microblower (30); a heatsink (12, 14) comprising: a base (12); fins (14) extending from the base, wherein the fins are arranged to form a lattice (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 21. Arik teaches a system for impingement cooling comprising: a piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet (30); a heatsink (12, 14) comprising: a base (12); a fluid flow path defining structure (fins 14) disposed on the base (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 2 & 13. Arik teaches the fins of the lattice define openings (spaces between 14) (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 3 & 14. Arik teaches the openings define a fluid flow path through the device (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 4 & 15. Arik teaches a size, density, and angle of the fins defines the size, arrangement, and number of openings and the resultant fluid flow path (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34; The limitations do not recite any specific correlation or dimensions. As such, the fin configuration as shown in Arik are configured to achieve a desired fluid flow path and thus read on the claimed limitation).
Re Claim 5 & 16. Arik teaches the fluid flow path is defined based on the application of the device (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 6 & 17. Arik teaches the size, density, and angle of the fins is determined based on the predetermined size of the device (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34; The limitations do not recite any specific correlation or dimensions. As such, the fin configuration as shown in Arik are configured to achieve a desired size and thus read on the claimed limitation).
Re Claim 7 & 18. Arik teaches the size, density, and angle of the fins is determined based on the predetermined temperature drop generated by the device (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34. The limitations do not recite any specific correlation or dimensions. As such, the fin configuration as shown in Arik are configured to achieve a desired temperature drop of the device and thus read on the claimed limitation).
Re Claim 8 & 19. Arik teaches the device formed from one selected from a group consisting of a metal, an alloy, or a conductive material (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34; Paragraph 29 teaches the base is formed of a thermally conductive material. Paragraph 42 teaches the fins can be made of metals such as copper and brazed to the bae plate).
Re Claims 9, 10, & 20. Arik teaches the device is formed by additive manufacturing or by three-dimensional printing (The method of forming is considered product-by-process limitations. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)) (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Re Claim 12. Arik teaches the microblower comprises piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 29-34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights